RAF without Jaguar

[Jackonicko]

Frankly they could have done without Harrier if it meant more Phantoms.

!!!

That's simply not the case. Even the GR1 Harrier was more useful in RAFG than the attack F-4M. The problem? That it didn't do strike - hence the Jag.

 

[Jackonicko]

So no-one, except for BAC, were too upset by the demise of Jaguar.

The idea that the F-4M was any more than an interim solution in the strike/attack role is wrong. Jag, even in its original NAVWASS/Adour 102 form was a much better strike/attack aircraft.

 

[Jackonicko]

Infinitely more potential in its raw platform than any Jaguar.

Including the potential to shed wings?
The potential to be lost in large numbers?

I'm sorry, I simply don't buy it.

 

[Pioneer]

If the RAF was willing to buy yet another American plane, my vote would be for A-7E. 15,000lbs of boom is impressive, and it is using a British engine (that greatly improved the breed at that!)

Yes, good and practical choice Scott Kenny, but at the same time, wasn't the RAF still obsessed by supersonic capability as a necessity?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the RAF was willing to buy yet another American plane, my vote would be for A-7E. 15,000lbs of boom is impressive, and it is using a British engine (that greatly improved the breed at that!)

Yes, good and practical choice Scott Kenny, but at the same time, wasn't the RAF still obsessed by supersonic capability as a necessity?

Regards
Pioneer

BAE was obsessed with supersonic, but how many aircraft can break mach with external stores?

 

[_Del_]

RAF Harriers usually took off and landed conventionally. I suspect that P1154 would have done the same.

More that I was wondering if they dropped the requirement. Could have saved at least a lift jet or two from most design participants. Technically more feasible and less expensive, and perhaps more politically feasible as a result. P.1154 would be one way, also.

 

[zen]

RAF Harriers usually took off and landed conventionally. I suspect that P1154 would have done the same.

More that I was wondering if they dropped the requirement. Could have saved at least a lift jet or two from most design participants. Technically more feasible and less expensive, and perhaps more politically feasible as a result. P.1154 would be one way, also.

What you need is...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-brough-solution.33831/

Or

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-very-british-flogger-type-584-585.30765/

And of course

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/p1154-scenario.22438/

 

[_Del_]

Something very like that is the direction I was thinking, zen.

 

[uk 75]

The aircraft that might have been built if Anglo French collaboration had not got off the ground in the first place was BAC's P45 striker trainer.
In a fantasy world where the RAF got 50 TSR2s and 150 P1154s the gaps were going to be filled by a lighter aircraft

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bac-p-45-p-61-bac-cac-aa-107-vg-fighter-strike-trainer-projects.5574/

 

[Pioneer]

BAE was obsessed with supersonic, but how many aircraft can break mach with external stores?

True that, which often made me think the cost and complexity of many "supersonic" fighter-bomber/strike aircraft programs was unnecessary....

Regards
Puoneer

 

[Kiltonge]

!!!

That's simply not the case. Even the GR1 Harrier was more useful in RAFG than the attack F-4M. The problem? That it didn't do strike - hence the Jag.

Harrier GR.1/3 was cleared for WE.177, but squadrons were not equipped due to their primary CAS tasking.

No Jags could mean more Harriers, some of which could be dedicated to strike. More efficient than adding yet another type to the inventory.

 

[alertken]

USAFE/UK F-4C/D hauled AW from 4/66, 8/73. Jacko's dissing of anyPhantom is not that it could not haul (almost anything can haul*), but that it was Kamikaze, not effective Strike. Jag GR.1 had Elliott NavWass and passive MSDS RHWR, maybe active MSDS Skyshadow ECM to help find, then survive: he demotes F-4s as being no more effective/survivable than first AW in UK. That was hernia Mk.7 dragged on USAFE F-84G/F from 11/54 on very long runways pointing out to sea: nav and self-defence by Mk.1 eyeball.

People were very confused about tactical AW. Harrier, V/STOL generally, simply compounded confusion. The decisive cause for non-deployment in W.Europe of AW-on-VTOL was the problem of dual-key Release from dispersed sites. That's why FRG played with ZELL schemes to disperse on-Main Base, even after runway deletion.

That would not have applied for WE177A on RAFG Harrier GR.3 (low payload on GR.1), but that was abandoned for 2 other reasons:
- low priority in the queue for AWRE's output (not on Minister Healey's list, 12/3/69, P.220, K.Stoddart, Losing an Empire, Palgrave,2012);
- RAFG's VTOL Wing was to be very close-up to the autobahn, Magdeburg-Hanover, where WarPac would roll. AW on their armour would be good; AW on Harriers trying to hide in copse and dell, protected by RAFRegt (rock apes) from SPETSNAZ....

(*: Ballistic trials of UK's first AW Blue Danube were by Avro Lincoln, "which were to be modified to carry (them) operationally, should the V-Bombers not be available"(!!) H.Wynn, Official Hist, RAF Nuc Det.Forces,HMSO,94,P.88.)

 

[Hood]

To be fair it wasn't BAC/BAe per se who were supersonic fans, it was the Air Staff.

ECAT was originally subsonic and the concession the French made to make it work was to go supersonic. The concession the British made was VG wings. Of course the whole rationale for VG wings was to go supersonic.

But let's not kid ourselves, an unreheated Jag would be severely thrust limited and the only subsonic ECAT offers from France were warmed-up Magisters. Even Breguet had the sense to make the Br.121 far more beefy in thrust than the Taon.

I'm actually writing about the background history of Jaguar right now for my next book, so I've been poring over the Kew files for weeks now and this discussion has been most interesting. Partly because in the files there never seems to be any risk of Jaguar being cancelled or any discussion of a stand-in, it just wasn't on the cards.

This discussion has probably overlooked that AST.396 began formulation in 1972, before Jaguar had even entered service. I think had Jaguar died in 1966, then there would be a gap with the RAF fighter fleet soldiering on and all efforts would have switched to AST.396.

 

[red admiral]

The aircraft that might have been built if Anglo French collaboration had not got off the ground in the first place was BAC's P45 striker trainer.

So, basically Jaguar but far more complex and expensive...

 

[JFC Fuller]

USAFE/UK F-4C/D hauled AW from 4/66, 8/73. Jacko's dissing of anyPhantom is not that it could not haul (almost anything can haul*), but that it was Kamikaze, not effective Strike. Jag GR.1 had Elliott NavWass and passive MSDS RHWR, maybe active MSDS Skyshadow ECM to help find, then survive: he demotes F-4s as being no more effective/survivable than first AW in UK. That was hernia Mk.7 dragged on USAFE F-84G/F from 11/54 on very long runways pointing out to sea: nav and self-defence by Mk.1 eyeball.

F-4M had Ferranti INAS (the same core system used in the Harrier GR.1, but with the Ferranti LRMTS, as used with NAVWASS in the Jaguar, instead of a radar) using the AWG-12 with a ground mapping function to 25nm scale. Performance wise, when well maintained, prepped and used the system would have 1nm error after 1 hour of flight. With the radar altimeter it was a self-contained navigation system that enabled the aircraft to operate down to 100ft whilst the radar allowed it to descend through cloud in relative safety compared to other types. For the attack run itself the aircraft used the lead computing optical sight interfaced with the other aircraft systems, with automatic attack modes. The F-4K/M was fitted with the same Marconi ARI 18228 radar warning receiver used by the Jaguar, from 1976. Sky shadow was not delivered to the RAF until 1980. USAF Phantoms were regularly equipped with jammer pods. Typical F-4M loads were 4 1,000lb bombs, 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows, the Jaguar usually flew with 4 1,000lb bombs and 2 sidewinders.

 

[Hood]

The Jaguar was meant to get the Ferranti INAS from Phantom and Harrier but Ferranti seemed to have problems integrating it with Phantom and Mintech got cold feet and pulled the contract and Jaguar got EASAMS digital NAVWASS (plus Mintech didn't want Ferranti to get an inertial monopoly, though at the time Marconi was trying to get their inertial system on the French Jaguar!).

The RAF estimated Jaguar would be marginally more accurate but of course AWG-12 gave blind bombing capability that the Jaguar lacked. Mintech looked at radars for Jag but none were available in time.
The F-4M could lug more load but Jaguar could use a PSP strip so it was always swings and roundabouts.

 

[zen]

Projected operational costs?

Jaguar ought to cost less.

Agreed prototype 19 February 1967.

Adour ran 10 May 1967.
Jaguar Trainer prototype (French) first flight 8 September 1968.
Tactical Support (French) 23 March 1969.
Basis of GR.mk1

Trainer (UK) 30 August 1971.

Delivery GR mk1 and T 1973. 165 and 35 respectively.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Jaguar was meant to get the Ferranti INAS from Phantom and Harrier but Ferranti seemed to have problems integrating it with Phantom and Mintech got cold feet and pulled the contract and Jaguar got EASAMS digital NAVWASS (plus Mintech didn't want Ferranti to get an inertial monopoly, though at the time Marconi was trying to get their inertial system on the French Jaguar!).

The RAF estimated Jaguar would be marginally more accurate but of course AWG-12 gave blind bombing capability that the Jaguar lacked. Mintech looked at radars for Jag but none were available in time.
The F-4M could lug more load but Jaguar could use a PSP strip so it was always swings and roundabouts.

For years I have wondered why the RAF procured two aircraft types with essentially the same nav-attack capability but delivered through different inertial platforms and other back-end sub-systems - question answered, thank you. The other advantage, though I have no idea of the extent to which it was used, of the LRMTS was the ability to engage targets marked with the ground-based laser target marker, theoretically giving an almost direct link between a ground unit and the aircraft's nav-attack system. Ideally, LRMTS would work alongside a radar, as eventually happened on Tornado. Across various pilot comments and official documents it seems that the Jaguar/Harrier had the edge in daylight+good weather CAS but the F-4M took it in Interdiction, Offensive Counter-Air and any scenario with degraded visibility.

I am curious about Mintech's views on radar availability. McDonnell offered the Ferranti FLR as part of its RF-4M proposal in 1966 (images attached). It wasn't a particularly massive system by the standards of the day and by the end of the TSR-2 programme it seems to have been fairly mature, albeit with a few kinks to be resolved. A pairing of the Ferranti FLR with LRMTS, in an expanded INAS, could have been a highly effective solution for the 1970s and recovered a small portion of the sunk cost from TSR-2. The limited volume in the as-built Jaguar may have been a prohibitive though and I wonder at what point pilot workload would become excessive.

Perhaps drifting too far down an alternative history rabbit hole, a bigger Jaguar, with even bigger wings, more power (perhaps jumping to a pair of RB.153s) and the aforementioned hypothetical Ferranti FLR+LRMTS INAS could have been a superlative 1970s and 1980s all-weather attack aircraft. Another way of thinking of it is as a smaller, and single seat, Blackburn P.141. No complex and expensive variable geometry and real-world sunk cost engines and nav-attack sub-systems. Something that had a go-decision been made in 1965 could have been in-service in the early 1970s?

 

[Hood]

I am curious about Mintech's views on radar availability.

A few options were available:
Ferranti had just unveiled a a concept for a lightweight J-band set, range of 3nm against a 15m² target.

A notional development of the AFVG’s terrain following radar, again just a concept (and would lack search and lock-on capability).

Radar Ranging Mk.4

Texas Instruments TFR (the RAF specifically did not want a TFR in Jaguar though and it would be lousy at air-to-air)

No French set then available would fit.

The Radar Research Establishment (perhaps unsurprisingly) backed fitting a radar but all were long-term options and just as expensive as LRMTS to develop so the Air Staff went with laser.

For years I have wondered why the RAF procured two aircraft types with essentially the same nav-attack capability but delivered through different inertial platforms and other back-end sub-systems - question answered, thank you.

Originally Jaguar and Harrier were exactly the same system, only difference was Jag had LRMTS from the start and Harrier GR.1 didn't (Harrier's kinematic ranging set up was a backup on Jag - except for laser-less T.2). But Jag in the end got a better digital system.

 

[Hood]

I do have a question, perhaps a bit off topic.

I was surprised to find that by 1966 the French Air Force had assigned the Jaguar A the role of supporting the Force de Frappe, acting as defence suppression by using Martel against air defence radars.
I find this odd given a number of factors:
- its a STOL tactical fighter
- had relatively low combat radius for penetrating E. Bloc air defence
- had no dedicated EW system, just X-band RWR in the forward arc only
- only carried one Martel (thus effectively a single-shot)

Was this simply because the AdA were searching for a use for the Jaguar or did they think it offered advantages over other platforms then in use/in development? (sounds more like AFVG/Mirage G's job to me.)

 

[CJGibson]

I find this odd given a number of factors:
- its a STOL tactical fighter

So is the Mirage IV

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3TXZ1G2tE

 

[zen]

For years I have wondered why the RAF procured two aircraft types with essentially the same nav-attack capability but delivered through different inertial platforms and other back-end sub-systems - question answered, thank you. The other advantage, though I have no idea of the extent to which it was used, of the LRMTS was the ability to engage targets marked with the ground-based laser target marker, theoretically giving an almost direct link between a ground unit and the aircraft's nav-attack system. Ideally, LRMTS would work alongside a radar, as eventually happened on Tornado. Across various pilot comments and official documents it seems that the Jaguar/Harrier had the edge in daylight+good weather CAS but the F-4M took it in Interdiction, Offensive Counter-Air and any scenario with degraded visibility.

I am curious about Mintech's views on radar availability. McDonnell offered the Ferranti FLR as part of its RF-4M proposal in 1966 (images attached). It wasn't a particularly massive system by the standards of the day and by the end of the TSR-2 programme it seems to have been fairly mature, albeit with a few kinks to be resolved. A pairing of the Ferranti FLR with LRMTS, in an expanded INAS, could have been a highly effective solution for the 1970s and recovered a small portion of the sunk cost from TSR-2. The limited volume in the as-built Jaguar may have been a prohibitive though and I wonder at what point pilot workload would become excessive.

Perhaps drifting too far down an alternative history rabbit hole, a bigger Jaguar, with even bigger wings, more power (perhaps jumping to a pair of RB.153s) and the aforementioned hypothetical Ferranti FLR+LRMTS INAS could have been a superlative 1970s and 1980s all-weather attack aircraft. Another way of thinking of it is as a smaller, and single seat, Blackburn P.141. No complex and expensive variable geometry and real-world sunk cost engines and nav-attack sub-systems. Something that had a go-decision been made in 1965 could have been in-service in the early 1970s?

Sounds to me like you're describing the P.141 or the fixed wing version of the P.45.

Either of which built in Attack and Fighter variants dependant on avionics. Provides a MRI platform and a potentially cheaper to run successor to the Lightning.

P1179 studies included the P.1179X which was a Brough study using blow and a pair of RB.199s

I've argued that the missing piece is something like P.141, P.146 or P.45 only earlier as a STOL backup to the V/STOL P.1154.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Texas Instruments TFR (the RAF specifically did not want a TFR in Jaguar though and it would be lousy at air-to-air)

It's a strike fighter, why wouldn't they want a TFR?!?

 

[red admiral]

Looking at the later Jaguar developments with a single RB.199 that offered substantially more range, I think I'd look to have Jaguar built around a single reheated Spey instead... but this misses that a new engine development was a major/the key part of the industrial-political landscape around Jaguar

 

[Archibald]

I do have a question, perhaps a bit off topic.

I was surprised to find that by 1966 the French Air Force had assigned the Jaguar A the role of supporting the Force de Frappe, acting as defence suppression by using Martel against air defence radars.
I find this odd given a number of factors:
- its a STOL tactical fighter
- had relatively low combat radius for penetrating E. Bloc air defence
- had no dedicated EW system, just X-band RWR in the forward arc only
- only carried one Martel (thus effectively a single-shot)

Was this simply because the AdA were searching for a use for the Jaguar or did they think it offered advantages over other platforms then in use/in development? (sounds more like AFVG/Mirage G's job to me.)

FATAC - French AF tactical air force. Mirage IIIE were doing the same kind of missions: MARTEL and strike.

 

[Jackonicko]

Harrier GR.1/3 was cleared for WE.177, but squadrons were not equipped due to their primary CAS tasking.

No Jags could mean more Harriers, some of which could be dedicated to strike. More efficient than adding yet another type to the inventory.

I'm not sure that's true. WE177 was fit-checked on the Harrier GR, but I don't think a pylon was designed, let alone cleared.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm not sure that's true. WE177 was fit-checked on the Harrier GR, but I don't think a pylon was designed, let alone cleared.

IIRC from a conversation here, the issue was that the Harriers with nukes would have a huge logistical trail, showing the Spetsnaz "attack here" with extra neon signs. Which kinda defeated the purpose of the dispersed Harriers in the first place.

 

[Kiltonge]

I'm not sure that's true. WE177 was fit-checked on the Harrier GR, but I don't think a pylon was designed, let alone cleared.

Ah you're right; on checking, only the SHARs actually had the wiring to the inboard hardpoints. Thanks.

Still, technically feasible for the GRs should Jag not have existed.

 

[GTX]

Go back to the original requirements that led to the Jaguar: Training first and foremost with light attack secondary. Therefore a T-38 led proposal of what was the USAF's own premier trainer could have found favour with the light attack/light fighter added in later. Add in German and possibly other NATO buyers and you have a common NATO wide training platform and eventual light attack/fighter pairing. One has to look at what was required not what eventually resulted.

Something based upon this scenario: Royal Tigers

With a teaser profile set by Stephen (aka Apophenia)

 

[Archibald]

YEEEES !!!! I often think that one company who truly achieved ECAT (Ecole, Combat, Appui Tactique : Training, Fighter, Tactical Strike) was Northrop with their N-156.
Just think about it... N-156F for strike, N-156T for training and even (drums rolling) N-156N as Jaguar-M.
By the way, Sud Aviation had grasped the above fact and was negociating a licence to build F-5s in Toulouse, circa 1965.

Next: imagine a scaled-up N-156 with M45s in place of the J85s. Smallish but powerful, modern turbofans... would be a proto-Hornet. Could interest The Netherlands, because P.530 Cobra.

 

[tomo pauk]

Next: imagine a scaled-up N-156 with M45s in place of the J85s. Smallish but powerful, modern turbofans... would be a proto-Hornet. Could interest The Netherlands, because P.530 Cobra.

F-5 with one RB.199 = F-20?

 

[GTX]

F-5 with one RB.199 = F-20?

Did you look at the Royal Tigers story?

 

[H_K]

Next: imagine a scaled-up N-156 with M45s in place of the J85s. Smallish but powerful, modern turbofans

No need for reheat IMHO for this role.

Honestly the Etendard IVB with a non-reheated Spey engine replacing the Avon would have been perfect as both a land- and carrier-based strike aircraft, first for daytime light attack only, then later in the 1970s with British nav/attack avionics added over time for night interdiction.

Etendard having better short/rough runway caracteristics and more space for avionics than the N-156. There was even a 2-seater Etendard on the drawing board that could have done the trainer role.

(Sorry for bringing up one of my favorites lol)

Or A-7 Corsair more realistically…

 

[tomo pauk]

Did you look at the Royal Tigers story?

Yes.
It would've been selling abroad just fine, IMO.

 

[Monk78]

A-4 skyhawk as a top gap measure until more phantoms are available

 

[Hood]

Nice story and some cool profiles, they look almost real!

Back in 1961 the Air Staff wanted something like the T-38, they didn't necessarily want to buy it, but it was a plausible option. In hindsight it would have been an expensive choice and probably a mistake, but it could have happened.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nice story and some cool profiles, they look almost real!

Back in 1961 the Air Staff wanted something like the T-38, they didn't necessarily want to buy it, but it was a plausible option. In hindsight it would have been an expensive choice and probably a mistake, but it could have happened.

Why the T-38-lookalike would've been expensive and a mistake?

 

[Hood]

Expensive to run in terms of fuel costs. Plus when the RAF decides subsonic training is the way to go in 1970 (certainly by 1974 given the oil crisis) you then have a load of fairly new T-38s sitting around being replaced by Hawks. Though I suppose you could repurpose them as two-seater light attack or sell them.

 

[Archibald]

Nice story and some cool profiles, they look almost real!

Back in 1961 the Air Staff wanted something like the T-38, they didn't necessarily want to buy it, but it was a plausible option. In hindsight it would have been an expensive choice and probably a mistake, but it could have happened.

Good, this mean they were thinking - somewhat - like Sud-Aviation. Could be a good starting point for an anglo-french large procurement of N-156s, including a licence to build them with anglo-french engines (Turbomeca & Rolls Royce partnership).
Of course the Jaguar would never exists.

 

[tomo pauk]

Expensive to run in terms of fuel costs.

Care to expand?

Plus when the RAF decides subsonic training is the way to go in 1970 (certainly by 1974 given the oil crisis) you then have a load of fairly new T-38s sitting around being replaced by Hawks. Though I suppose you could repurpose them as two-seater light attack or sell them.

The 1-seater version would've still gotten the a lot of mileage to use in the ground attack role.